"The tone of some of my tweets concerning Iowa was at odds with that which Gov. Walker has always encouraged in political discourse."

Said Liz Mair, resigning from Scott Walker’s political operation. We were just enjoying her work here. [Link goes to the first March 17th post.]

What did she tweet about Iowa? "Morons across America are astounded to learn that people from *IOWA* grow up rather government-dependent" and "The sooner we remove Iowa’s frontrunning status, the better off American politics and policy will be."

If Walker had only known that talking tough was going to be the thing this year. Ah, well. I hope Mair's play for attention works out for her. I have much less problem with calling Trump (or anyone) a "dick" than with exclaiming "Oh, good God" which Megyn Kelly just did (on Fox News, talking about Trump):

I am pasting part of a lengthy piece from the WSJ here because I know they have a pay wall. The writer worked for Denny Hastert and is a PR guy. Seems to me a pretty accurate assessment of the R party today.

1. Donald Trump is no one-hit wonder. Whatever you think of things he has said or done, it cannot be denied that he has his finger on the concerns, fears, and desires of a great many Republicans. His “America First” agenda reflects where many working-class people (and middle-class voters who think of themselves in that way) live and work.

2. We are no longer the party of Bush, Romney, or McCain. Noblesse oblige is over. The GOP is now the party of Andrew Jackson. Interestingly, it was John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, who first stumbled onto this. It’s no surprise that she was an early endorser of Mr. Trump.

3. Ideology is no substitute for practicality. Voters are looking out for their interests more than they are looking for ideological purity. Older voters don’t want Social Security touched. Working-class voters don’t want more trade agreements they worry could kill American jobs. Many whites are uncomfortable with more immigration, legal or not.

4. The Republican Party cannot expand its base until it clarifies what the GOP stands for. The “autopsy report” conducted after Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012 called for strategies to attract more Hispanic and black voters to the GOP. But the party can’t be all things to all people. And until it is clear where the GOP stands among different classes of whites, Republicans won’t be able to build a strategy to attract people of color.

5. The donor class is not as important as the working class. Donors have had an outsize impact on the Republican policy agenda because they have long had the most access to politicians. But what seems rational to some who can afford to give tens of thousands of dollars to campaigns can sound much different to the average worker. Politicians lose touch with ordinary constituents at their peril. Just ask Eric Cantor.

6. “Conservative” has become a meaningless label. Most every Republican calls him- or herself a conservative, yet there is no unanimity of opinion among Republicans on anything. If everybody is a conservative, nobody is a conservative. The House Freedom Caucus likes to call itself conservative, but those members aren’t conservative–they are reactionary. Worse, they are anarchists: They would rather see the federal government breach the debt limit or shut down–threats to U.S. credibility that could affect our national security–than find responsible ways to pass smart legislation.

Filling airtime at CNN so Hillary stories are never gotten to; we see another self proclaimed politics genius that has never won anything accusing a true winner of being a great frustration to her. Yes, Trump makes her look bad.

But it is fun watching the talking heads pretend. They are so sensitive that they must apologise for saying BAD words like Ass

Maybe Gold Star Moms are watching cable TV and they cannot be hurt again by any real human conversation.

An entirely virtual firm staffed by politics veterans, the firm is “lean and mean” and brings an aggressive, hard-hitting, presidential campaign-style approach to issues work it manages and executes for its clients.

A good catch, that article. I think it firmly identifies why Trump has trouble with the leaders of the GOP- he is the one trying to expand the tent, and it will necessarily mean they lose control if Trump is successful. Again, it is Insiders vs Outsiders- see the Kansan results this morning! Watch Paul Ryan next Tuesday- that race is likely to be much closer than it should be. The electorate is getting indiscriminate when it comes to voting out politicians.

1) #Nevertrump are mostly the same people who, for years, told me to suck it up and vote for the most conservative candidate.

2) It seems the media, Democrats, Republicans and pollsters are all in cahoots. Like, their is this group that all meet and chat among themselves and are all in general agreement with one another on the broader strokes. And they all confirm one another's bias.

3) #Nevertrump is pissed at losing its power and is doing anything and everything it can to bring down Trump so they can say, "We told you so! Never ignore us again, or else!"

4) Even though I have ginormous disagreements with Althouse, at least I don't get the perception here that she moves in these crowds, or is moved by them. Like Instapundit. I find it refreshing.

@khesanh0802: A little OT, but good excerpt. Worth another post/thread Feehery is mostly right. But if he is, there's no obvious solution. As I said in an earlier post this morning, excuse the self-reference, the cracks are real. Even if there's a tent big enough to hold the Jacksonian Trumpkins and the Bushy Romneys and the small-gov paleocons, it's not clear they want to be together. Part of it is a structural issue: different constituencies have different interests and worldviews. Part of it is the Dem/O deep play: to destroy the real enemy, i.e. the GOP.

One quibble about the last line: "They would rather see the federal government breach the debt limit or shut down–threats to U.S. credibility that could affect our national security–than find responsible ways to pass smart legislation." Sure, the flame-throwers can be "irresponsible." But this comment just illustrates the cracks, coming from a Hastertian GOPer; surprise, surprise, from that POV "smart" legislation typically produces more rules and more spending. Of course, that doesn't actually bother the core Trump supporters, who like the kind of big government that helps them. What it means is that all politics has turned tribal, even more than in the past: in a nation of takers, everyone just wants theirs. Dem vs. whatever form the GOP takes is just about dividing spoils.

Coupe wrote: "I'm starting to see where all the campaign dollars are ending up. Even if people never actually watch them."

You are nearing an epiphany. The money is wasted. To prove this, all you really need to do is look at the gross numbers of viewers. The cable news channels- Fox-CNN-MSNBC-HLN, rarely draw more than 7 million viewers combined at a time, and it is reasonable to guess the viewers are regulars for the most part. The mainline news shows on NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS draw about 20-25 million combined, and it is probably the case that there is great overlap between the networks and the cable channels, too. It is doubtful there are more than 30 million people in the US total who even watch these shows once in a week. When you consider that these lean heavily towards the politically involved, and likely immune to persuasion to change, I think it easy to see the money wasted on PR via these programs is giant waste of resources for any campaign.

Blogger Sebastian said...@khesanh0802: A little OT, but good excerpt. Worth another post/thread Feehery is mostly right. But if he is, there's no obvious solution. As I said in an earlier post this morning, excuse the self-reference, the cracks are real. Even if there's a tent big enough to hold the Jacksonian Trumpkins and the Bushy Romneys and the small-gov paleocons, it's not clear they want to be together.

Here's the thing though. Maybe we dont want to be together but for the past 20 years I've sucked it up and voted for their guy. For Dole, for Bush, for McCain and for Romney.

"It almost seems that Trump is causing his antagonists to talk more roughly than he does." - I've noticed on FaceBook that some people who normally go for pseudo intellectual tropes when it comes to politics sound like potty mouthed children when it comes to Trump - and seem to have no idea he's got them down to his level or lower.

Isn't that the kind of plain-talking anti-PC language that the Trumpkins like so much?

It is precisely the same way that I discuss Trump with my Republican golfing buddies. That Trump is a loudmouthed dick. (And a notorious cheater, with the fakiest fake handicap any of us have ever seen. We all want to play Trump for $10 billion.)

Not to defend Trump (I'd like to see a "loudmouthed libertarian dick" run for office and call "liberals" what they are: tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government sniffers and State fellators"); but better a loudmouthed dick than an Alinskyite Witch.

"Here's the thing though. Maybe we dont want to be together but for the past 20 years I've sucked it up and voted for their guy. For Dole, for Bush, for McCain and for Romney.

Now when it's my guy, they can't do the same?"

I can't speak for whatever reservations you had about Dole, Bush, etc. (I certainly had my own and still voted for them as well) but clearly they were able to make the sale for you. Why was it that you sucked it up and voted for them? I suspect ultimately you decided those candidates were better than the alternatives, and at least marginally acceptable to you.

Clearly, the "anti-Trump" conservatives have not been convinced yet. Maybe Trump can make the case, maybe not, but ultimately it's not just the duty of the voter to go along if they're just too far apart. As an example, can you imagine the party nominating someone bad enough that you could never vote for them?

""It almost seems that Trump is causing his antagonists to talk more roughly than he does." - I've noticed on FaceBook that some people who normally go for pseudo intellectual tropes when it comes to politics sound like potty mouthed children when it comes to Trump - and seem to have no idea he's got them down to his level or lower."

There is a lot of ugliness there. And of course a lot of them (at least on the Left) have the "crying wolf" problem. Didn't they go on about how cruel and cold Romney was, or how stupid Bush was, or totalitarian Cheney was? They may have lost some credibility talking about Trump now. (And in fairness, many of us were pretty rough on Gore and Kerry, but Clinton, who is far more corrupt than either of them, is on another level and to leftists it probably sounds like "oh this crap again").

Clearly, the "anti-Trump" conservatives have not been convinced yet. Maybe Trump can make the case, maybe not, but ultimately it's not just the duty of the voter to go along if they're just too far apart. As an example, can you imagine the party nominating someone bad enough that you could never vote for them?

I don't agree with this.

In every election there are people who are staunch Republicans who won't vote for the Republican candidate. In 2012 I knew many who wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Ever.

It's not those people to whom I am referring. It's the Bill Crystals. The NRO people. The Erick Erickson's. The George Wills.

We have a certain segment, small though it is, of Republicans and Conservatives that are talking heads. They get the spotlight. They get the time before the camera. These are the people on TV and in print with influence over Brando and others like him.

If they keep pushing stories that the Trump campaign is about to implode (unnamed sources confirm it!) And other gossip, it depresses turn out. It gives an impression that the whole of the GOP is never Trump.

These are the people who were fine getting on board with Romney. Romney?! A NE Liberal who promised us he would do away with Obamacare, which was based off of his own legislation.

You'll excuse me if you want me to believe these people have an ideological dispute with Trump that just simply makes him unacceptable. I call BS.

I've swallowed my difficulties with their candidates. They refuse to do the same with mine. Any talk that my candidate is somehow special is just an excuse.

As for whining about Rs finally taking their place at the trough, I have hazily a quote from John Jakes' final Kent Chronicles novel, The Americans. This is Carter Kent, who bummed around the States and ended up on San Francisco attaching himself to the Democratic machine. Something like:

The trick in politics is to keep your snout in the trough while convincing the other hogs to be high-minded instead of hungry.

Maybe high-mindedness will return, but at present is severely maladaptive. Time to give the better angels of our nature a rest and break out the ol' tit for tat.

Or we could start the killing. Either way. Logically I think the killing is the right answer but, social contract, civilized instincts and all that rot still would stay my hand, if there is another choice.

As I've said before, ultimately I believe the Republican party is over. It's been irrecoverably splintered whether people want to believe it or not. There's far too many warring factions who each have intractable viewpoints. What's worse is due to demographic shifts there's now not enough people in any one of these factions to actually win a Presidential election anymore (although state and congressional election victories may still be possible). Whomever ends up taking up the mantel of the GOP at the end of all this will end up being a minority party.

There's plenty of blame to go around, and I'm sure it will be dished out liberally if and when Hillary Clinton wins, which will only deepen the divisions of course. Barrack Obama in conjunction with the MSN have successfully accelerated this end, but I believe that this end was inevitable anyway.

It almost seems that Trump is causing his antagonists to talk more roughly than he does

Wm. Empson, in "Dictionaries" in _The Structure of Complex Words_, takes a cut at what the C.O.D. ought to look like instead of stuttering and repeating, so that you get some clue about how the word is used if you're a foreigner,

"You'll excuse me if you want me to believe these people have an ideological dispute with Trump that just simply makes him unacceptable. I call BS.

I've swallowed my difficulties with their candidates. They refuse to do the same with mine. Any talk that my candidate is somehow special is just an excuse."

I don't know how this really disputes with what I've said--you said yourself that a lot of people stayed home and didn't vote for Romney because they thought he was too leftist (or at least not convincing in pretending to be conservative). As you said, you went with him anyway (as did I, though I actually thought he was more conservative than he let on--but that's another matter). Clearly though, those people consider Trump far harder to swallow than you found Romney. Maybe you figured Romney would be kept in line by his party and base of support, or maybe you had some other reason for going along. I doubt it was because someone berated you into it.

I'm not a "never Trumper" myself, much as I can't stand the guy, but I can understand where they're coming from. You went along with Romney, but let's say hypothetically Bill Clinton somehow ran and got the GOP nomination in 2012 (maybe to get back at Obama). Half of Republicans tell you Clinton changed, he really is a conservative, and he's far better than Obama. You think that's all BS and figure you have no good choices that year so you say screw it. You may disagree that that's the case here, but I'd wager that's how the NeverTrumpers feel about this election.

And maybe they need to open their eyes and see that Trump isn't so bad, or maybe Trump needs to actually make some effort towards getting his coalition together. The only thing I think is completely wrong is that Trump can win this year without a lot of those Trumpskeptical Republicans coming back to the fold.

"As I've said before, ultimately I believe the Republican party is over. It's been irrecoverably splintered whether people want to believe it or not. There's far too many warring factions who each have intractable viewpoints. What's worse is due to demographic shifts there's now not enough people in any one of these factions to actually win a Presidential election anymore (although state and congressional election victories may still be possible). Whomever ends up taking up the mantel of the GOP at the end of all this will end up being a minority party."

It is, I agree with that--but in the long run it may be a good thing. It might even lead to splintering of the Democrats, if a lot of them see more to their liking in one of the new post-Republican parties.

Brando is trying to pretend like Trump has a unique position over other Republicans candidates. That he is unacceptable because of his positions. Where I could get on board with Romney, because Romney is a good Republican, he can't get in board with Trump. It's all about identical purity, you see? That is, when it's his turn to suck it up.

Keep up the good work, Chuck. You are showing visitors here that NeverTrumpers are unreasonable assholes. A vote for Trump is good and a vote against Hillary is even better. None of the open border, pro-amnesty Republican losers had a chance. 80% of Americans had their fill of such assholes.

I don't know how this really disputes with what I've said--you said yourself that a lot of people stayed home and didn't vote for Romney because they thought he was too leftist (or at least not convincing in pretending to be conservative).

We are talking about two different groups of people. You're talking about the average voter. I accept that some won't ever accept Trump. I'm fine with that. It always happens.

Wow, I just played the video of Megyn Kelly responding to David Wohl's moronic response claiming credit for Trump on complying with ADA-compliant handicap ramps.

I don't get Althouse; why isn't Megyn Kelly's response the correct one? It is pure bullshit from one of Trump's base-level bullshitters. How did Wohl get hooked up with Trump? Was he an attack puppy on one of the thousands of Trump lawsuits?

"Brando is trying to pretend like Trump has a unique position over other Republicans candidates. That he is unacceptable because of his positions. Where I could get on board with Romney, because Romney is a good Republican, he can't get in board with Trump. It's all about identical purity, you see? That is, when it's his turn to suck it up."

I certainly think he's unacceptable, but the point I'm making is not whether he is or isn't, but that to a lot of us that's our opinion of him and that's what he needs to overcome (no I don't think the "Brando vote" is itself important, but rather that if reliable GOP voters aren't on board this year, it's nearly impossible in this polarized electorate to win for the GOP). It's indisputable that he hasn't bridged that gap, whether you think we're being ridiculous (I assume you do think so) or whether I think that unlike Romney, Trump isn't making any overtures to skeptical conservatives.

There's no "turn" to suck it up (and like you, I've "sucked it up" over a lot of those same candidates and maybe for the same reasons). You either can stomach a candidate who isn't ideal, or you don't. When Romney wanted to make the sale, he played hard right in the primaries (on immigration, taxes, etc.) and that either convinced conservatives that he really felt that way or at least that he knew who he needed and who he'd owe if he took office.

But why are you so sure their reasons are just petulance? What would they have to gain by opposing Trump? It's not as though pundits as established as them are going to go out of business for backing the guy, and they've had no problem backing unpopular people before (Levin I think was a Cruz man, and Cruz was more hated by the GOP establishment than even Trump).

Someone in this comments section said that Trump is trying the 'expand the tent'. HAHAHAHAHA! It's pretty evident that Trump is a party of one. This is one reason why Megyn Kelly shakes her head. She understands. Trump is absurd. Anyone with common sense - even if they are a Republican - knows this. Of course, they may still vote for him but they aren't pretending he is bringing people from all cultures and walks of life together into the GOP.

Brando said...It is, I agree with that--but in the long run it may be a good thing. It might even lead to splintering of the Democrats, if a lot of them see more to their liking in one of the new post-Republican parties.

Perhaps. I think that the Democrat party is going through a pretty eristic period as well (although unfortunately I'm not convinced it's quite as severe as the one the Republican party is currently going through). In recent years the Democrats have more openly courted extremist groups and veiwpoints, and it has caused problems for them. And they had a sort of populist uprising with the Bernie Sanders phenomenon.

It's clear to me that the Democrat party is in a sort of denial about the various grievance groups and conflicting interests that comprise its membership. The millennial faction despises the Wall Street money that the aging leadership covets. The rage of the BLM protesters toward the Police has also produced a lot awkward feelings among the leadership too.

And the various disconnects and hypocrisies will probably only increase under a Hillary Clinton administration. Her general incompetence with regards to foreign policy and security will probably lead to some chaos in the coming years. And will undoubtedly lead to even more dissatisfaction among the ranks.

"it's his turn to suck it up." I will. Strictly against Hill. But the suck-up analogy with previous candidates fails: they held republican views, were not amateurish clowns, and had a shot. Now we are asked to vote for a candidate who rejects many traditional Republican views, is an amateurish clown, and has no shot.

"Perhaps. I think that the Democrat party is going through a pretty eristic period as well (although unfortunately I'm not convinced it's quite as severe as the one the Republican party is currently going through). In recent years the Democrats have more openly courted extremist groups and veiwpoints, and it has caused problems for them. And they had a sort of populist uprising with the Bernie Sanders phenomenon."

Yeah--generally, the Dems have been good at banding together, in part because they fear the Republicans more than they disagree with each other, and have done a good job building the image of Republicans as religious nuts, plutocrats, bigots, and maniacs. (And sometimes Republicans indulge them) So the Bernie fan who hates Wall Street still figures a Wall Street crony like Hillary is more likely to rein in her buddies than the Republicans, and they coalesce. They do have divisions, though--think about the racialists when they conflict with the faux feminists (e.g., if you want it easier to punish accused rapists, that's NOT a good thing for black men who are disproportionately accused of such crimes and frequently can't afford good lawyers and suffer more when kicked out of school), or the environmentalists vs. union members, or even socially liberal suburbanites who prefer moderate Dems over the populists. Those divisions are held together by Republican boogeymen--but what happens when the GOP splits out, and some Dem populists see an anti-business populist party emerge? Or moderate Dems see a more moderate GOP splinter group that appeals more to them than the swampy Left? It could realign the whole system.

"the various disconnects and hypocrisies will probably only increase" They may. Then again, power and money go a long way; Hill and Bill are masters at triangulating; O will still be in the picture, mobilizing his own troops to community-organize the country; and Dems have plenty of experience in using bribes, real and symbolic, to glue their coalition together. Since the Trumpkin third of its supposed constituencies does not believe in traditional GOP notions and rails against the GOPe, and the GOP doesn't have enough power and money to throw their way, and a segment of the GOP really is opposed to using government to bribe voters anyway, the GOP is in much bigger trouble nationally.

"But the suck-up analogy with previous candidates fails: they held republican views, were not amateurish clowns, and had a shot. Now we are asked to vote for a candidate who rejects many traditional Republican views, is an amateurish clown, and has no shot."

That's at least how a lot of us view Trump--but in eric's defense, he probably considers Trump more conservative than we do, or at least more aligned on issues important to him. Ultimately the candidate has to appeal to his skeptics.

Trump the 'Republican' just proposed a yuuuuge infrastructure spending plan. $500 Billion. From Bloomberg; "Donald Trump on Tuesday proposed a plan to rebuild U.S. infrastructure that costs “at least double” the amount that Hillary Clinton has floated, in what would amount to a massive new government program."

If Republicans think that, at least with Trump, conservative principles will be on the table they are willfully ignorant.

Brando said... Those divisions are held together by Republican boogeymen--but what happens when the GOP splits out, and some Dem populists see an anti-business populist party emerge? Or moderate Dems see a more moderate GOP splinter group that appeals more to them than the swampy Left? It could realign the whole system.

You may be right. As you pointed out, the main thing that seems to bind them together is their hatred/fear of Republicans. For example, it's possibly that over time some of the Bernie supporters could slowly learn about or experience the unworkability of Socialist systems and bureaucracies and adopt more libertarian values, then defect to one of the more libertarian GOP successor factions. Could be just wishful thinking though. But one things for sure, the result of the demise or diminishing of the GOP will leave a pretty big vacuum.

I love speculating on this junk, but there's always unforeseeable events that have an outsized effect. The only certainty is uncertainty.

But I did like Khesan's 11:24 excerpt. The Republican party has never been really united, formed as it was out of fragments of other parties (e.g., Whigs, Free Soil Party, anti-slavery Democrats, etc.), and based more on "special principles" than the special interests (i.e., "spoils") that the Dems have always shared in common and somehow always managed to divide up adequately enough to keep everyone on the reservation and marching in lock step. But the current division in the Rep party really started exploding during the W presidency and it's been getting worse ever since. I won't be surprised if the fissure is rendered permanent by the end of the decade--maybe by the end of this election--and the GOP is no more.

Speaking of which, this election is getting curiouser and curiouser. But of course we know when the all the dicks and cunts have spoken that Hillary will have won. Because that is what we deserve. We are a sick society and getting sicker.

The last few days of headlines were all complete nothings. Complete garbage as stories. Yet, the media nitpicked everyone while basically ignoring the Iran scandal.Has anyone even asked Hillary one question about it? I realize she doesn't do press conferences, but give me a break.

"But why are you so sure their reasons are just petulance? What would they have to gain by opposing Trump? It's not as though pundits as established as them are going to go out of business for backing the guy, and they've had no problem backing unpopular people before (Levin I think was a Cruz man, and Cruz was more hated by the GOP establishment than even Trump)."

Because what is their alternative? If they are Never Trump, shouldn't the have someone else they are saying we should be for that can actually win against Hillary? Its just petulance because there is no other choice. And you have to wonder, why their assault on Trump is more important than trying to expose Hilary Clinton.They really do not seem to care that much about it. To the point where some at national Review are now saying "the threat of liberal judges isn't enough to make one vote for Trump" That was one of the primary arguments that Cruz used as to why we need to vote for him. Suddenly judges aren't important?If judges aren't important, then why is voting for Republicans important? If the "principled conservatives" are the ones carrying Hillary's water and the RINO is actually taking on Hillary, you have to wonder what world we are living in at this point.

"I don't get Althouse; why isn't Megyn Kelly's response the correct one? It is pure bullshit from one of Trump's base-level bullshitters. How did Wohl get hooked up with Trump? Was he an attack puppy on one of the thousands of Trump lawsuits?"

I think it's worse to take the Lord's name in vain than to say "dick."

In case I'm not being clear, what I mean is, when it becomes "normal" in a society to accept "unacceptable" behavior based on the RELATIVE acceptability of it's badness--"but he was worse, mommy!"--it's over.

It is, or soon will be, ALL acceptable. Do as thou wilt. Cuss however you want.

"But why are you so sure their reasons are just petulance? What would they have to gain by opposing Trump? It's not as though pundits as established as them are going to go out of business for backing the guy, and they've had no problem backing unpopular people before (Levin I think was a Cruz man, and Cruz was more hated by the GOP establishment than even Trump)."

That's easy for most of them. Follow the money. Medved for example is owned by Salem Media. He has been a corporate shill for a while. George will hasn't seen an actual human being outside DC in decades and is paid by the wapo among other media outlets. He is just protecting his rice bowl.

Levin on the other hand is part of my ideological faction and is unhappy that it is dead. He is just butt hurt.

This goes for everything. If we elect Trump we have a shot at keeping our country.

If we elect Clinton it will be proof that many Americans were morally debased enough to vote for her and enough more Americans are too cowardly or selfish to try to defeat her. The rule of law will be officially dead.